]]>https://www.basair.net/dr-akram-nadwi-denial-of-sihr/feed/2260Answering Dr Akram Nadwi’s Claims Against Fadhā’il-i-A’mālhttps://www.basair.net/dr-akram-nadwi/
https://www.basair.net/dr-akram-nadwi/#commentsWed, 10 May 2017 09:57:02 +0000https://www.basair.net/?p=48Introduction It is not the first time someone is highlighting major discrepancies in the claims of Dr Akram Nadwi, and I can assure you it will not be the last time either. Right across the spectrum of Islamic sciences, Dr Akram, who is strangely hailed as a mujtahid by some of his ardent fans, likes …

It is not the first time someone is highlighting major discrepancies in the claims of Dr Akram Nadwi, and I can assure you it will not be the last time either. Right across the spectrum of Islamic sciences, Dr Akram, who is strangely hailed as a mujtahid by some of his ardent fans, likes to make a mark with controversial comments and seems to relish in unbridled critique and making recklessly brave claims. The irony in all of it is that Dr Akram says what he admires most about the Prophet ﷺ is that he knew his limits. Sadly, the same cannot be said for the Doctor. And as the saying in Arabic goes, “Whoever says what is inappropriate will hear what he doesn’t like.”

In one of many of his diatribes which have come to light, Dr Akram has once again proved that he is disposed to arbitrary criticism and speaking about matters far beyond his own stature. This time, to his own detriment, he has really shot himself in the foot, boisterously claiming that the teacher of our teachers, the blessing of the era (Barakat al-Asr) Shaykh al-Hadīth Mawlānā Muhammad Zakarīyyah al-Kāndhlawī al-Madanī (may Allāh illuminate his grave) did not take any care when writing his Fadhā’il-i-A’māl treatises and wrote blindly like a Sufi. When questioned about this later, instead of providing a proper explanation, the Doctor decided to add a further claim that the author admitted to being suffering from a mental condition when he wrote them!

Doctor Akram! If only you had invested in a life-size mirror to look at yourself very carefully — from your topi down to your toes — and then engaged in some serious introspection, before embarking on your discursive criticism of not just Shaykh al-Hadīth Mawlānā Muhammad Zakarīyyah (rahimahullah), but rather scores of scholars far more qualified than yourself. Can you be excused, because you yourself do not know what you are talking about? Perhaps it is a case of “oppose and you shall be recognised (khālif tu’raf)” which inspires your ramblings? Or are you compelled to do so by the organisations and platforms which take pride in the fruitful investment they have made in you? Then again, could it be you receive your guidance from the likes of Sanbhalī Sāhib and others of that ilk? If it is none of the above, the only conclusion is that you are suffering from the same mental health issues you spuriously attribute towards others without any sense of accountability. If that is the case, we will consider it an honour to help bring some equilibrium to your mental state and personally pay for you to be treated by a good, qualified herbalist, or whoever else can cure your condition.

Before making any judgment on the tone and direction of this article, focus should be on the points which will be discussed here. There are those who afford Dr Akram the liberty to unjustifiably criticise whomsoever he wishes, but then show symptoms of an allergic reaction when the Doctor is on the receiving end of criticism. My advice to such people is that it will be entirely self-defeating if offence is taken to the tone used here, only to use the same tone in any response. And to be frank, had Dr Akram not ranted the way he did, this response would have been markedly different. “And the retribution for an evil act is an evil one like it” (Qur’ān, 42:40).

Inconsistency of Sufis

Dr Akram Nadwi, in a course entitled “Spirituality in Islam: What is Sufism?” which he delivered in April 2014 at Leeds MET University, said the following (amongst a whole host of unqualified claims):

“And try to understand one thing really. Most of the people who when they write things on Sufism, then they shut down their mind of faqīh and thinking. They just follow this blindly as a Sufi. Then even the hadīth which are fabricated, they don’t care, they don’t check, just keep repeating. Same person when it comes on madhhab, they say no this hadīth is weak, is it mursal and this and that. They are great faqīh and muhaddith. But same person when he writes on Sufism, no mursal, no munqati‘, every hadīth is hadīth sahīh. They don’t care about anything. They shut their mind properly. You can see it. Like for example Shaykh al-Hadīth Mawlānā Zakarīyyah (RA), I respect him. When he writes Sharh Awjaz al-Masālik Muwattā, and this and that, you can see he is a faqīh and a muhaddith and this and that. Same person when writing a book on Fadhā’il-i-A’māl, then you know fabricated hadīth, munkar hadīth and all those things. No discussion, no argument. Every single thing he copies from the book and take it as it is. It is not right, people are not consistent. There are very few people in the world who are always consistent; most people are not consistent.” (sic)

The inconsistency of “most of the people” who write on Sufism is the main point Dr Akram has raised here. His very bold claim is that when writing on topics besides Sufism, people were very meticulous and exercised a rigorous approach when dealing with hadīths. But when they put pen to paper regarding Sufism, they became blind Sufis who cast aside their juridical thinking, shut their minds, and carelessly wrote whatever they felt like, even if that meant recording fabricated hadīths. And out of all the people he chose to highlight as an example of his hyperbole, he decided to pick an old target.

The Fadhā’il-i-A’māl series, in case it has escaped the Doctor’s mind, are not books on Sufism or Tasawwuf, but treatises explaining the virtues of particular acts of worship. Unfortunately, the incoherence of Dr Akram’s arguments, just in this very brief rant, is quite ludicrous. It appears that his own mind goes into sleep mode when he opens his mouth to criticise, and he does not realise how blatantly wrong his assertions are.

Weak Hadiths in the Works of Notable Hadith Scholars

Firstly, it slipped Dr Akram that the inconsistent approach he is bemoaning of “most of the people when they write things on Sufism” – whoever he was referring to – is in fact the “crime” of numerous great hadīth scholars in their non-Sufism works. And as already mentioned, the works of Shaykh al-Hadīth Mawlānā Muhammad Zakarīyyah (rahimahullah) he has criticised are not works on Sufism; they are essentially hadīth compilations followed with brief commentary.

Furthermore, many giants in the science of hadīth consented to using weak narrations in matters related to reward, punishment, virtues of actions, inculcating noble characteristics, safeguarding against evil character traits, and other aspects which motivate people towards good actions and instill fear of bad actions.

A few of these statements are cited below, only by way of example, and not to serve as an exhaustive list.

Abū Hātim (rahimahullah) narrates from ‘Abdah ibn Sulaymān (rahimahullah) that it was said to ‘Abdullah ibn al-Mubārak (d. 181 AH) (rahimahullah) when he narrated a hadīth from a [certain] person: “This is a weak person”. He replied, “This amount” or “Such things can be narrated from him.” Abū Hātim asked, “What sort of thing was it?” ‘Abdah replied, “Regarding etiquette, admonition, abstinence, or such things.”[1]

Imām ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn al-Mahdī (d.198 AH) (rahimahullah) said, “When we narrate regarding reward, punishment, and virtues of actions, we are lenient with respect to chains of transmission and narrators, and when we narrate regarding the lawful and unlawful, we are strict with respect to narrators.”[2]

Imām Abū Bakr al-Bayhaqī (d. 485 AH) (rahimahullah) said, “The scholars of hadīth adopted lenience in accepting what has come of supplications and virtues of actions, provided they are not from the narration of those known to fabricate hadīths or lie in narrating.”[3]

Imām Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr (d. 463 AH) (rahimahullah) said, “Virtues are narrated from all [narrators]. Proof, from a chain of transmission (isnād) perspective, is only thoroughly verified in rulings, and in the lawful and unlawful.”[4] “The scholars have always been lenient in narrating hadīths on virtues [of actions] from all [narrators]. They were not as critical regarding them as they were with hadīths on rulings.”[5] It is worth noting that both the hadīths under which Imām Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr made these comments are extremely weak, due to the presence of a discarded (matrūk) narrator in their chains.

Imām Abū ‘Amr ibn al-Salāh (d.643 AH) (rahimahullah) said, “According to the scholars of hadīth and others, it is permissible to be lenient regarding chains of transmission (isnāds) and narrating – with the exception of fabrications – the different categories of weak hadīths, without concern for explaining their weakness, in matters other than the attributes (sifāt) of Allāh, and rulings of the sacred law (Sharī’ah) regarding the lawful, unlawful and other things. They are matters such as advices, stories, virtues of actions, all types of encouragement (targhīb) and instilling fear (tarhīb), and everything which is not connected to rulings and beliefs.”[6]

Alongside these explicit statements, which prove that hadīth scholars advocated laxity in narrating hadīths on non-ruling and non-belief based matters, a quick look at some of the published works of notable hadīth scholars throughout the ages shows how they also narrated hadīths of varying levels of weakness.

Hereunder are just a few examples:

Al-Zuhd wa ’l-Raqā’iq of Imām ‘Abdullāh ibn al-Mubārak (d.181 AH) (rahimahullah). Many of the narrations have been graded by the reviewer, Ahmad Farid, as mursal, munqati’, mu’dal (all types of hadīth with a breakage in the chain of transmission), with a weak chain and some with a very weak chain.

Hilyat al-Awliyā’ of Imām Abū Nu’aym (d. 430 AH) (rahimahullah). Ibn Taymīyyah (rahimahullah) said that Imām Ahmad’s Al-Zuhd, Ibn al-Mubārak’s Al-Zuhd and similar books are more authentic than Hilyat al-Awliyā’, but that it is inevitable that books like Hilyat al-Awliyā’ and others will contain weak narrations and stories, and even baseless narrations. He says that there are a number of such narrations in Hilyat al-Awliyā’, but they are relatively less compared to other books.[7]

Al-Sharī’ah of Imām Abū Bakr ibn al-Ājurrī (d. 360 AH) (rahimahullah) contains a number of weak and very weak hadīths. Some have also been graded as fabricated.

Al-Kalīm al-Tayyib (not the abridged Sahīh al-Kalīm al-Tayyib!) of Hāfiz Ibn Taymīyyah (d. 728 AH) (rahimahullah) contains a number of weak and very weak hadīths, and a few hadīths are also reported to be fabricated.

Uddat al-Sābirīn of Hāfiz Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawzīyyah (d. 751 AH) (rahimahullah), amongst his many books, contains many weak narrations of varying grades. Likewise is the condition of his other books, such as Rawdhāt al-Muhibbīn, Tārīq al-Hijratayn, Hādi al-Arwāh and Ar-Rūh.

Nūr al-Iqtibās of al-Hāfiz Ibn Rajab al-Hanbalī (d. 795 AH) (rahimahullah) contains a number of weak and very weak narrations, with some containing narrators in their chains who were reported to relate fabrications! His other works such as Istinshāq Nasīm al-Uns, Ahwāl al-Qubūr, Al-Takhwīf min al-Nār, and many of his hadīth monographs contain weak hadīths also.

Al-Hisn al-Hasīn of Imām Ibn al-Jazarī (d. 833 AH) (rahimahullah) has a number of weak and very weak narrations.

Al-Qawl al-Badī of al-Hāfiz Shams al-Din al-Sakhāwi (d. 902 AH) (rahimahullah), in which he comments after quoting the hadīth of Salat al-Hājah: “In conclusion, it is a very weak hadīth which is written in [the chapter] of virtues of actions.”[8]

The list above is a minute snapshot of the works of great hadīth scholars, all of whom narrated hadīths varying in weakness in their books that are not related to Sufism. Also, in most cases, the authors have not even indicated the weakness to the readers.

Furthermore, Hazrat Shaykh (rahimahullah) echoed the same stance and clarified this in a number of places in his Fadhā’il treatises. For example, in Fadhā’il-i-Ramadān, he said regarding the first hadīth:

“The hadīth scholars have scrutinised some of the narrators. However, with respect to virtues, this amount of scrutiny is tolerable. Secondly, most of its contents are supported by other narrations.”[9]

In light of the above, we come to some burning questions for Dr Akram: Did all of the aforementioned imams “shut their mind properly” whilst they were writing these works? Did Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr (rahimahullah) lose his “mind of faqīh and thinking” when he said hadīth scholars were always lenient regarding weak hadīths on virtues, only to regain his “mind of faqīh” when writing works like Al-Tamhīd, Al-Istidhkār and Al-Kāfī? Which Sufi tarīqah made them perpetrate this inconsistency you bemoan? Why did they not care about anything? Is it not a howler of a consistency on your part that you identified this as a weakness of Sufi authors, but did not realise you would be hitting the hadīth scholars through collateral damage? Or is it allowed for hadīth experts to narrate weak hadīths but not for Sufis, because of your deep-rooted bias towards the latter group? Which of the abovementioned books are Sufi books?

It is important to note that the objective here is not to stifle any discussion on the validity of using weak hadīths. The point being raised here is the sweeping manner in which Dr Akram demeans the approach adopted by great hadīth scholars throughout the ages.

Shaykh Muhammad Awwāmah (hafizahullah) writes that there is an element of showing oneself superior to these imams [i.e., those who narrated weak hadīths in their books] when criticising them in the forewords to their books, and accusing them of not researching and refraining from narrating weak hadīths in their works.[10]

He also writes (on pg. 117), specifically regarding As-Shifa’ of Qādi ‘Iyādh al-Mālikī (d.544 AH) (rahimahullah), that whoever reads it with a critical eye will consider both the author and his work to be weak, but as for one who views the author through his commentary of Sahīh Muslim, he will see an expert imam with deep insight at work.

In short, the difference between the approach towards hadīths on virtues etc. and towards hadīths on rulings (ahkām) is not an inconsistency of Hazrat Shaykh (rahimahullah) or blind Sufis, but rather the consciously-adopted practice of hadīth scholars from the earlier generations onwards. Unbiased readers will have understood that by now, but things need to be spelled out clearly for Dr Akram!

Adding Insult to Injury

As if Dr Akram’s claim regarding the inconsistency of Hazrat Shaykh (rahimahullah) in his Fadhā’il works was not bad enough, the Doctor decided to further demonstrate his tendency to jabber by throwing in another desultory claim. To lend credibility to, or even detract from his initial outburst, Dr Akram later claimed that Hazrat Shaykh (rahimahullah) himself wrote that he had a mental condition (dimāghī hālat) when writing Fadhā’il-i-A’māl!

Unless Dr Akram’s capacity as a mujtahid gives him an open licence to falsely attribute statements to the author, it is fair to deem this a pitiful attempt to discredit the author and his works. Had the Doctor taken the trouble to do just a bit of research before making his comments, he would not have ended up jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

So where did Hazrat Shaykh (rahimahullah) apparently say he had mental issues when writing Fadhā’il-i-A’māl?

Before answering that, it is important to note that Fadhā’il-i-A’māl is a compilation of treatises, each of which was written at different times. All besides one of these works was written upon the instruction of the author’s elders. The following nine treatises make up the renowned series:

Fadhā’il-i-Qur’ān, written in 1348 AH upon the instruction of Shah Yāsīn Naginwī (rahimahullah);

Fadhā’il-i-Ramadhān, written in 1349 AH;

Fadhā’il-i-Tablīgh, written in 1350 AH;

Fadhā’il-i-Namāz, written in 1358 AH;

Fadhā’il-i-Dhikr, written in 1358 AH, all upon the instruction of Hazrat Mawlānā Muhammad Ilyās (rahimahullah);

Hikāyāt-i-Sahābah, written in 1357 AH upon the request of Shāh ‘Abd al-Qādir Raipūrī (rahimahullah);

Fadhā’il-i-Sadaqāt, completed in 1367 AH and which was written upon the instruction of Hazrat Mawlānā Muhammad Ilyās (rahimahullah);

Fadhā’il-i-Durūd which was written in 1384 AH upon the instruction of Shah Yasīn Naginwī (d. 1380 AH), who had emphasised during his lifetime that this treatise be written.

Dr Akram claimed the author admitted to being mentally unfit when compiling Fadhā’il-i-A’māl, failing to even mention that the Fadhā’il treatises were not written as a single work. But as readers will have already witnessed, it is very easy for the Doctor to say whatever occurs to him. Nonetheless, it was not difficult to ascertain what the Doctor had misconstrued, as people of his ilk prior to him also felt they could pull wool over people’s eyes with the same claim.

We will allow Hazrat Shaykh (rahimahullah) himself to shed light on the issue.

Hikāyāt-i-Sahābah

In his autobiography, Āp Bītī, Hazrat Shaykh (rahimahullah) writes:

“In Safar 1357 AH, whilst on my way to Ajrara, I had a severe nosebleed which started after Maghrib and continued until eight in the morning. Throughout the night, approximately two pots were filled with blood as if from thin air….Nonetheless, instead of going to Ajrara, this worthless one was taken to Saharanpur with Hazrat Nāzim Sāhib (may Allāh illuminate his grave) on a first class ticket, in such a state that I have no recollection of the train journey, nor of Saharanpur or Meerut. I was stopped by doctors and hakīms from mental work (dimāghī kām) for a few months.

My Hazrat, mentor and benefactor, Hazrat Mawlānā Shāh ‘Abd al-Qādir Raipūri Sāhib had been instructing me to write it [i.e., Hikāyāt-i-Sahābah] for approximately four years. However, I was unable to comply due to my many preoccupations. Availing of this period of illness, I fulfilled his instruction by writing here and there whilst resting, and it was completed on 12th Shawwāl 1357 AH. A few days later, I began to teach again and I also started to write I’tidāl, which will be mentioned shortly.”[11]

In the preface to Hikāyāt-i-Sahābah, which is what Doctor Akram alluded to, Hazrat Shaykh (rahimahullah) says:

“For four years, I continued hearing this instruction but felt ashamed of my unworthiness. In Safar 1357 AH, I was stopped from mental work (dimāghī kām) for a few days. I thought I should spend these free days in this blessed task. Even if these few pages are not received with approval, my free moments will have been spent in this excellent and most blessed task.”[12]

Now, anyone who is mentally stable themselves will understand the clear purport of Hazrat Shaykh’s words, and that there is a distinct difference between being advised not to engage in mentally strenuous work due to illness and not being in a right state of mind. There are many cases, old and recent, of dedicated scholars and elders who were advised to take rest, but in their utmost zeal for knowledge and benefiting the creation, they strove relentlessly nonetheless.

Unfortunately, such points are very easily lost upon Dr Akram and it is no longer surprising to hear such bold comments from him. Even a quick glance at the preface to Hikāyāt-i-Sahābah or Aap Beeti, or contacting the senior students and associates of Hazrat Shaykh (rahimahullah) would have saved Dr Akram from such a glaring blunder. However, all means to verify are useless when there is no genuine attempt to understand, and furthermore, present the truth.

And if he is still insisting this is the case, he is requested to bring forth something from Hikāyāt-i-Sahābah which suggests the author was mentally unfit, or otherwise reflect over the hadīth: “Whoever believes in Allāh and the Last Day should say what is good or keep quiet” (Bukhārī, Muslim).

My advice to the Doctor is, as the poet says:

O he who is hitting his head against the high mountain, in an attempt to wound it! Worry about your own head, not the mountain!

“Hikāyāt-i-Sahābah has a special rank amongst the works of Hazrat Shaykh. It is unique in its effectiveness and benefit. Apart from being an important part of the Tablīghī Jamā’at syllabus, it is a widely-accepted da’wah textbook amongst religious and da’wah circles. The language is fluent and pleasant, its style of explanation is profound, and its effective stories are not only heartrending but revolutionary.”[13]

The fact that Hikāyāt-i-Sahābah was accepted amongst many different circles is evident from a letter which was sent to the author by Mawlānā Muhammad Dawūd Rāz (rahimahullah), an Ahl-i-Hadīth scholar, who said:

“Your renowned, simple-to-understand book Hikāyāt-i-Sahābah is not only widely accepted in North India, but also in South India. Due to it being reliable, it is, alongside being accepted amongst Hanafī friends, also accepted amongst the Ahl-i-Hadīth.”[14]

“The statement of a renowned contemporary scholar regarding the religious and practical benefit of these books, i.e., that thousands have attained the status of saintliness (wilāyah) through them, does not seem like an exaggeration.”[15]

I would suggest the Doctor actually reads what his shaykh has written in praise of Hazrat Shaykh (rahimahullah) and his works. It will serve as good detox reading.

Awjaz al-Masālik and Other Works

In a very premature attempt to defend Dr Akram’s accusing Hazrat Shaykh (rahimahullah) of mental health issues, some have tried to support the idea by saying that hadīth scholars also pointed out great narrators of hadīth as becoming confused or senile. They have added that this probably explains why problematic hadīth crept into the book. It seems Dr Akram’s illness of speaking authoritatively without basis is contagious and has spread to his admirers too.

Without exhausting the discussion again, even with a minimal amount of research, it is clear that the Fadhā’il works were not written altogether but over a number of years, and the same non-Sufism works which Dr Akram initially praised were written during the same sort of time period as the Fadhā’il works, if not later in life.

“Through the grace and kindness of Allāh, its draft has been completed at the time of ‘Asr adhān on Monday 28th Dhu ’l-Hijjah 1375 after the Prophet’s hijrah – may the choicest blessings and greetings be upon him. Thirty years and a few months were spent in compiling it, as the start of its compilation was in Madinah Munawwarah – may it be increased in nobility – in 1345 AH, as I mentioned in the beginning of the book.

A number of big obstacles, which made me lose hope in completing the book, interrupted the compilation a number of times. For example, in the year 1351 AH, I was preoccupied in writing and publishing the marginal notes to Al-Kawkab al-Durrīyy for two years in which I was not free to write even one sentence of Awjaz.”[16]

Eight of the nine Fadhā’il treatises were written during this period in which Awjaz al-Masālik was compiled. Hence, Dr Akram and those who are eager to defend him need to decide what their stance is: Are the Fadhā’il books of Hazrat Shaykh (rahimahullah) problematic because the author is amongst those who “shut down their mind of faqīh and thinking”, “just follow things blindly as a Sufi”, “don’t care about anything”, “shut their mind properly” or is it because the author was mentally unfit? Were all the hadīth scholars whose books contain “problematic” hadīths, similar to those of Hazrat Shaykh (rahimahullah), also suffering from mental conditions, or was it as Dr Akram first asserted because “they shut down their mind of faqīh and thinking”? Or is being a Sufi synonymous with insanity according to Dr Akram and his admirers?

People in Glasshouses Shouldn’t Throw Stones

A humorous twist to all this is how Dr Akram himself not only uses very weak hadīths – in matters of rulings also – but also out of context! Consider for example his trying to prove covering of the face is not necessary through a hadīth of Ibn Abi Shaybah’s Musannaf (17959) (22792), in which Sayyidah ‘Ā’ishah (radhiallahu anha) is supposed to have paraded young teenage girls in the markets of Madīnah, so that people fall in love with them and marry them. Besides being a weak hadīth, with two unknown narrators in its chain (‘Ammār ibn ‘Imrān and a “woman from them”), the hadīth has been contextualised both by the chapters it has been narrated in and also the hadīths that precede and follow it; the context is selling slave-girls!

So did Dr Akram enter a Sufi tarīqah when he was relating this hadīth? Or did he switch his mind off and not bother to check if it was reliable or not? Or did he have some dimāghī hālāt at the time and can thus be excused for being inconsistent and not caring about what he narrates? Dr Akram is in the best position to answer that.

By the bye, it is not uncommon for the Rawafidh to also quote and misconstrue the above hadith, with a view to disparage Sayyida Ā’isha (radhiallahu anha).

The Sky’s the Limit

Outlandish claims are fast becoming the hallmark of Dr Akram Nadwi. There is nothing he says which comes across as surprising anymore. Disgusting: yes. But not surprising. The books of Islamic law are harsh on women and all the scholars were misogynists because they started studying philosophy; all Indian hadīth commentaries are sectarian, as they did not bother to explain the book, and that is why they did not make any big contribution; Jalāl al-Dīn Rūmī (rahimahullah) wanted to rewrite the Qur’ān; Hazrat Shaykh (rahimahullah) was mentally unfit when writing Fadha’il A’maal; all of these pale in front of the picture he has painted of Madīna Munawwarah at the time of Rasūlullah ﷺ.

After a programme he conducted in Lancashire a number of years ago, lamenting the fact that women are not allowed to come to the mosque and disputing the fitna argument which is put forward, Dr Akram said that in the time of the Prophet ﷺ, zinā used to occur openly (khul-i-ām) in the markets of Madīnah, and Asma’ (radhiallahu anha) used to wear extremely tight clothes.

There is not much left to say after statements like that. Once people board the roller-coaster of full throttle criticism, they are sure to be derailed totally. Dr Akram has, whether he realises it or not, already gone far afield of his range, and in his irascible manner, reached the doorstep of the Companions.[17] The Prophet ﷺ and Allāh are only a few steps away.

It was ‘Allamah Sayyid Sulaymān Nadwi (rahimahumullah) who, after reading a famous poet’s derogatory remarks about Allah Most High in a newspaper, could not sleep until he had written an indignant reply to the poet’s audacious prattle. “Allah does not like the public mention of evil except by one who has been wronged” (Qur’an. 4:148).

What Dr Akram needs more than anything else at the moment is a generous serving of humble pie. Hopefully, that will help him retract his half-baked musings and ensure he is careful not to speak out of turn in future.

“Our Lord, do not let our hearts deviate from the right path after You have given us guidance, and bestow upon us mercy from Your own. Surely, You alone are the One who bestows in abundance.” (Qur’an, 3:8)

[17] It is not difficult to understand the difference between Sayyida Asmā bint Abī Bakr (radhiallahu anha) being corrected by the Prophet ﷺ for wearing thin clothes, as mentioned in a hadīth (Sunan Abi Dawud 4104), and giving the impression that this was her normal practice in Madina without objection.

]]>https://www.basair.net/dr-akram-nadwi/feed/948The Implications of Inconsistency in the Hadith of the Shiahttps://www.basair.net/implications-inconsistency-hadith-shia/
https://www.basair.net/implications-inconsistency-hadith-shia/#respondWed, 10 May 2017 08:10:21 +0000https://www.basair.net/?p=38(Translator’s Foreword: The following is a translation of an insightful piece written by Shaykh Muhammad Taha Karaan, in which he has succinctly discussed a number of salient features of the Shia hadith tradition, and also assessed how accurate the Shia are in their claim to taking their knowledge from a pure, unadulterated chain of inerrant imams.) …

]]>(Translator’s Foreword: The following is a translation of an insightful piece written by Shaykh Muhammad Taha Karaan, in which he has succinctly discussed a number of salient features of the Shia hadith tradition, and also assessed how accurate the Shia are in their claim to taking their knowledge from a pure, unadulterated chain of inerrant imams.)

Introduction

The Ahl as-Sunna and Shi’a both share in taking the Qur’an as a source of religious legislation (tashri’), and despite the opinion of the Qur’an being tampered being common among the Shi’a, they are nonetheless ordered to rely upon the Qur’an currently in our midst, until the Hidden Imam appears.

Likewise, just as both groups deem the Qur’an a source of religious legislation, they also both rely upon the Sunna, except that the Shi’a concept of Sunna differs with that of the Ahl as-Sunna. We can disregard the finer distinction between the concepts of Sunna according to each group, and for practical reasons, conclude that the Sunna according to the Ahl as-Sunna is that which the hadith books of Ahl as-Sunna comprise. At the forefront of these books are the Six Books – the two Sahihs and the four Sunan collections – and the musnad and mu’jam collections. On the other hand, the Sunna according to the Shi’a is that which their hadith sources comprise, the most important of them being the Four Books (al-kutub al-arba’a): Al-Kafi of al-Kulayni; Man La Yahduruhu al-Faqih of as-Saduq ibn Babawayh; Tahdhib al-Ahkam; and Al-Istibsar, both by Abu Ja’far at-Tusi.

Whatever the case, both groups claim they are exclusively upon the truth which was revealed to Muhammad g, and that other groups besides them have erred from this truth, because they took the Sunna from the wrong people and trusted unreliable sources which were distorted at the hands of fabricators. It was hence vital to carefully consider what each group considers a reliable source of religious legislation.

As the Qur’an is a common denominator for both groups, albeit at a superficial level[1], the only option was to look at the Sunna and see which is the real Sunna of Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam): the Sunna of the Ahl as-Sunna or that of the Imamiyya Shi’a? With this purpose in mind, we shall shed some light upon the Sunna tradition according to the Shi’a.

And from Allah is all ability.

The Concept of Imama

The core belief of the Imamiyya[2] is Imama, the belief that Allah Most High appointed twelve imams after Muhammad g whose duty was to take charge of the heritage of the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), and to protect and convey it; the imam is the sole conveyor from the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). And to ensure his conveying was sound from lapses or mistakes, Allah Most High granted them inerrancy (‘isma), making them inerrant (ma’sum) imams, conveying one after the other in a manner that is divinely-protected by Allah from every human deficiency.

This succession continued through twelve imams, each imam having students who recorded the Sunna which they took from them. And why should they not record it, seeing that they are the inerrant imams and custodians of the heritage of their grandfather, the Chosen One (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)? How can they not write on their authority, when they are the treasurers of the knowledge of Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam); specifically appointed by Allah Most High to convey on behalf of the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam); with them are the Torah, Evangel and the Qur’an written by Amir al-Mu’minin; their and their forefathers’ status is greater than that of the Prophets of Great Resolve (Ulu’ l-’Azm); and every atom in the universe humbles itself before their power? For this reason, every imam was the sole inerrant authority, with respect to the Sunna, in his lifetime, whereas others were merely narrators who were either right or who had erred.

Hence, whatever books the students of a particular imam compiled during his lifetime, when a new imam would take the former imam’s place after his demise and become the new sole authority of the Sunna, it left no need for what his father’s[3] students had compiled.

Based on this, one would expect after a golden chain of inerrant imams, each with his own students who recorded the Sunna from him, that the Sunna of the followers of these imams would all trace back through this chain: the Twelfth Imam, from his father, from his father, from his father, until it reaches ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib h from Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

A Shi’a poet has actually boasted about this:

If you wish to choose a school for yourself,

Which shall deliver you from the flames of the Fire on the Day of Gathering,

Leave the opinions of Shafi’i, Malik, Ibn Hanbal, and what Ka’b al-Ahbar has related,

Take from people whose statements and narrations are: Our grandfather narrated from Jibril from the Creator.

Furthermore, the basis for the claim that the Sunna in its entirety should be narrated through this golden chain is that Allah’s care towards the Shari’a being soundly conveyed meant He did not suffice upon average narrators to preserve the Shari’a from being lost and to transmit it to future generations. Rather, Allah chose for this umma divinely-guided guides and inerrant imams. All of this was to ensure no mistake or lapse could seep into this great heritage. Thus, Allah was not going to let the umma depend on the narrations of human transmitters who were prone to human error and forgetfulness, as long as He had appointed for them those regarding whom none of the above was ever imaginable. This is the philosophy of inerrancy (‘isma) which the Shi’a claim for their imams.

Nonexistence of Shi’a Hadiths Through the Inerrant Chain

After explaining the concept, we move towards the ground reality and turn to the Shi’a books of hadith, to examine the extent of conformance to this concept. It is at this point we are left utterly surprised to realise we cannot find even one narration which has been related through this golden inerrant chain.

Chapter on the Incumbence of Obeying the Imams. There are seventeen hadiths in this chapter:

On the authority of Zurara from Imam al-Baqir

On the authority of Abu ’s-Sabbah from Imam as-Sadiq

On the authority of Bashir al-Attar from from Imam as-Sadiq

On the authority of Husayn ibn al-Mukhtar from one of our companions from Imam as-Sadiq

On the authority of Abu ’l-Hasan al-ATTar from Imam as-Sadiq

On the authority of Abu ’s-Sabbah an-Kinani from Imam as-Sadiq

On the authority of Husayn ibn Abi ’l-’Ala’ from Imam as-Sadiq

On the authority of Ma’mar ibn Khallad from Imam ar-Rida

On the authority of Abu Basir from Imam as-Sadiq

On the authority of Muhammad ibn Zayd at-Tabari from Imam ar-Rida

On the authority of Abu Salama from Imam as-Sadiq

On the authority of Muhammad ibn Fudayl from Imam al-Baqir

On the authority of Isma’il ibn Jabir from Imam al-Baqir

On the authority of Abu Ishaq from one of the companions of Amir al-Mu’minin

On the authority of Muhammad ibn Hazm from Imam as-Sadiq

On the authority of Husayn ibn Abi ’l-’Ala’ from Imam as-Sadiq

On the authority of ‘Abd al-A’la from Imam as-Sadiq

Although this is just one chapter, we chose it randomly upon opening the book, not through selection or browsing its pages. What the reader notices in the narrations of this chapter, namely that most of the chains converge at Imam as-Sadiq and Imam al-Baqir through the path (Tariq) of their students and not the imams from their progeny, is a phenomenon which is reflected throughout the book, and in fact, all four of their books.

If you find this issue surprising, what is more surprising is that there is not a single narration from the Twelfth Imam in Al-Kafi, despite al-Kulayni being a contemporary of all four of his emissaries (safir)[5]. Why does al-Kulayni rely on secondary narrators when he is able to take the Sunna from his contemporaries from Imam al-Mahdi, who had only been given inerrancy so he can convey “from our grandfather from Jibril from the Creator”?[6]

And if this left you astonished, here is something which will surprise you even more: ‘Uthman ibn Sa’id al-’Amri was the first emissary who benefitted from being in contact with the Hidden Imam, hence he was by virtue of this contact, the best narrator from the Hidden Imam from his forefathers. Despite this, we do not find a single narration of his from the Twelfth Imam in the Four Books. In fact, not even from the eleventh imam, whom he was known to have served. In Jami’ al-Ruwat[7], al-Ardabili mentions five of his chains in Al-Tahdhib and Al-Kafi, but none of them reach Hasan al-’Askari [the eleventh imam] or the Hidden Imam.

This will definitely raise many questions in the reader’s mind. Did al-’Amri not have any occupation besides amassing wealth and producing letters?[8] Did al-Kulayni, his contemporary in Baghdad, not find in these letters anything worthy of inclusion in his book? Was there nothing more to those letters besides cursing the accursed individuals who competed with al-’Amri and his son to be emissaries of the Hidden Imam, and praising those emissaries who were entrusted with collecting the Khums[9] and the share of the imam?

Let us leave the father and move to the son, Muhammad ibn ‘Uthman, the second emissary who remained at this post for close to half a century. Al-Ardabili tells us that Shaykh at-Tusi has mentioned in Al-Fihrist that Muhammad [ibn ‘Uthman] ibn Sa’id did not narrate from any of the imams, and this was by writing the symbol لم with his name.[10] Fifty years yet not a single narration from the imam he claims to meet. “Indeed, this is a thing intended. We have not heard of this in the latest religion. This is not but a fabrication.”

As for the single narration al-Ardabili[11] narrated from the third emissary, Abu’l-Qasim Husayn ibn Ruh an-Nawbakhti, in Al-Tahdhib[12], it is from Abu ’l-Qasim; from Muhammad ibn Ziyad; from Abu ’l-Hashim al-Ja’fari; from Imam al-Jawwaad.

The fourth emissary, Abu ’l-Hasan as-Samarri is the most destitute among them in narration: no narration from him in the books of hadith nor any mention of him in the earlier biographical collections. According to Jami’ al-Ruwat, his first listing as a narrator appears as late as Ibn Mutahhar’s eighth century list, Al-Khulasa.[13]

The Real Sources of Shi’a Hadiths

It is established from what has passed that the inerrant chain has not played for the Shi’a the role for which Allah had made it inerrant. So we ask: if the authors of the four books did not rely upon this chain in acquiring the Sunna, what did they rely upon? And if they did not take hadiths directly from the imams of the Ahl al-Bayt, whom did they take it from? The answer to this has been briefly alluded to in some of what he mentioned previously, but now we shall answer in detail.

The sources from which these authors acquired the Sunna are the books which the students of the imams, in particular Imams al-Baqir and as-Sadiq, compiled. These books are known by the Shi’a as the Four Hundred Sources (al-Usul al-Arba’umi’a). Shaykh as-Saduq and Shaykh al-Ta’ifa Abu Ja’far at-Tusi have, in a very lucid and satisfactory manner, explained to us that they rely upon these sources, as they do not quote any hadith in their books with their own complete chains of transmission, but rather the chain starts by mentioning the author of the particular relied-upon amongst the Four Hundred Sources. They have mentioned at the end of Al-Faqih [i.e., Man La Yahduruhu al-Faqih], Al-Tahdhib and Al-Istibsar the shaykhs through whom their chains trace back to the authors of the Four Hundred Sources, albeit there is some discrepancy in these chains of teachers too. In short, their reliance upon these sources is true beyond any doubt.

As for al-Kulayni, his methodology in narrating hadiths is different to that of his two colleagues; he narrates the full chain from himself to the imam. If this casts a doubt on al-Kulayni’s reliance upon these sources, al-Taqi al-Majlisi has affirmed that al-Kulayni is no different to Ibn Babawayh and aT-Tusi with respect to relying upon the Four Hundred Sources.

He says in his commentary of Al-Faqih, entitled Rawdat al-Muttaqin:

It is apparent that the two Shaykhs transmitted everything in the two books from the Four Hundred Sources, upon which the True Sect relies, as stated by as-Saduq. The same is understood from the words of Thiqat al-Islam [al-Kulayni].[14]

To emphasise further, we relate what one of the great Shi’a scholars said in this regard. As-Shahid ath-Thani Zayn ad-Din al-’Amili says in his book, Ad-Diraya:

The earlier scholars compiled the hadiths which had reached them from our imams – may Allah’s peace be upon them – into four hundred books they named the Sources (al-Usul) and upon which they relied, such as the Asl of Jamil ibn Darraj, the Asl of Zurara, and so forth. Some of our elders embarked on compiling and sequencing them into specific books, to make them more accessible to the reader. The best of them are the Four Books which are relied upon in this era. They are Al-Kafi of Muhammad ibn Ya’qub al-Kulayni (d.329 ah), in which he gathered different types of hadith; Man La Yahduruhu al-Faqih of Abu Ja’far Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Babawayh al-Qummi (d. 381 ah), in which he gathered the hadiths of rulings from the Sources; and At-Tahdhib and Al-Istibsar of Shaykh Abu Ja’far Muhammad ibn al-Hasan at-Tusi (d. 460 ah) in which he also gathered just hadiths of rulings.”[15]

Hence, the reliance of the authors of the Four Books on the Four Hundred Sources and their taking therefrom is an undisputed matter.

Let us now move to defining the period in which the Four Hundred Sources were compiled. Here too, Shi’a scholars have saved us the difficulty of investigating the matter. “And sufficient was Allah for the believers in battle”.

‘Allama al-Mamiqani states in Miqbas al-Hidayah fi ‘Ilm ad-Diraya:

It is commonly stated by the scholars, rather in their books too, that the Four Hundred Sources were compiled in the era of our master as-Sadiq (alayhis salam) according to some, or in the era of both Sadiqs (alayhimas salam) (i.e., al-Baqir and as-Sadiq) according to another, or in the era of as-Sadiq and al-Kazim (alayhimas salam) as mentioned by at-Tusi in I’lam al-Wara, where he says: ‘Four thousand people among the renowned people of knowledge narrated from as-Sadiq (alayhis salam). Four hundred famous books were compiled from his answers to questions, known as al-Usul, and which were narrated by his students and the students of his son, Musa (alayhis salam).’”[16]

One who has read the beginning of this article must note the connection between what al-Mamiqani has mentioned here on the authority of Tabrasi and the chapter of Al-Kafi which we presented as an example.

Inconsistency in Shi’a Hadiths

It is clearly established from what has already passed that with respect to the Sunna, the Shi’a depend on their books, the most important of them being the Four Books, just as it is established that these books trace their origins back to the Four Hundred Sources, and that these four hundred compilations appeared in the era of Imam as-Sadiq, his father al-Baqir, and his son al-Kazim.

From this point we move to another very critical phenomenon, which is the issue of inconsistency in Shi’a hadiths. However, before going to the depths of this discussion, we would like digress by postulating another issue, namely that these sources should enjoy a high level of credibility and authenticity. This is because it is supposed that their authors compiled them in light of what they took from the imams, and at times they would also present these books to them. For this reason, reliance upon these books was widespread amongst the early Shi’a scholars.

The first Majlisi [the father of Baqir Majlisi] says in his Sharh al-Faqih:

Undoubtedly, the reliance of our early scholars was on the books narrated by the reliable companions of the imams…They recorded what they heard from them in their books, and these books were authentic according to the scholars.”[17]

This is what also prompted the authors of the Four Books to place uncritical reliance upon the Four Hundred Sources.

Ibn Babawayh said in the introduction to Al-Faqih:

I wrote this book by removing the chains, so that its paths of transmission are not too many…Everything contained in it has been extracted from renowned books which are relied upon and which are referred back to.” [18]

Thus, he had every right to say in the preface to his book that he will only include in the book that which he agrees with, affirms as authentic and considers a proof (hujja) between him and his Lord.

Likewise, AT-Tusi paid great attention to giving preference to and reconciling between differing hadiths. However, you will rarely see him preferring one hadith over the other due to one being weak.

It is also clear from al-Kulayni’s preface that he trusts what he has narrated in his book. He addresses the person who requested him to compile the book as follows:

And you said you would like to have a book which suffices, gathering therein from all branches of religious knowledge that which the student can suffice upon, and to which a seeker of guidance can refer, and from which he may take who seeks knowledge of the religion and wishes to act upon authentic narrations of the truthful (alayhimus salam) and practiced sunan…And Allah made easy, and to Him belongs praise and favour, compiling what you asked. I hope it is as you anticipated.[19]

Moreover, when the Four Hundred Sources were trusted, it is only logical that we should find therein the knowledge of the family of Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), pure and impeccable, and harmonious without any crookedness or discrepancy, as “had it been from other than Allah, they would have found much discrepancy therein”. It was also expected that the Four Books, due to their content being taken from the Four Hundred Sources, will reflect the same harmony and consistency.

However, what the reader of these books will encounter is something starkly different. What you will find when looking into them is discrepancy in its most ugly form. If you think I have fallen into this extreme mode of expression due to becoming a victim of bias, listen with me to what Shaykh at-Tusi said in the beginning of his At-Tahdhib, immediately after praising Allah and sending blessings on the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam):

One of my friends amongst those whose right upon me is binding- may Allah support him – discussed with me the hadiths of our people – may Allah support them and have mercy on the predecessors among them – and the difference, incongruity, contradiction and disparity which has occurred in them, to the extent that rarely will there be a narration except that in opposition to it, there is that which contradicts it, and no hadith is safe from being opposed by that which negates it. Our opponents have made this one of the biggest attacks on our school and have used this as a route to nullify our creed. They said, ‘Your shaykhs from the predecessors and the successors have always criticised their opponents for the differences they follow, and they vilify them over disunity in subsidiary matters, mentioning that it is impermissible for a person of wisdom to adopt this as a religion and for a person of knowledge to allow this to be practiced. However, we have found you to differ even more than your opponents and to conflict with each other more than your adversaries. The existence of this difference on your part, despite your believing this to be falsehood, is a proof of the invalidity of the source.’ This reached the extent that doubts crept into a group of them who are not strong in knowledge nor do they have insight into the modes of contemplation and meanings of words. Many of them retracted from the truth when the reason behind this [i.e., this difference] was unclear to them and they were unable to solve the doubt therein. I heard my shaykh, Abu ‘Abdillah [al-Mufid] – may Allah support him – mention that Abu ’l-Husayn al-Haruni al-’Alawi used to believe the truth and follow the belief of Imama. However, he retracted from it, when the matter of differences in hadith became confusing for him. He left the school and practiced something else, when the different meanings therein were not clear to him.”

It was this phenomenon of gross and ubiquitous discrepancy that spurred Shaykh at-Tusi to compile At-Tahdhib. Once his book At-Tahdhib became renowned, some asked him to separately compile the hadiths in which there was discrepancy. Hence, he wrote his second book Al-Istibsar, whose full name Al-Istibsar fi ma ukhtulifa min al-akhbar (Contemplating the narrations in which there is discrepancy) discloses its real essence. Specifying two books amongst four books of hadith, due to inconsistency in the texts, is the clearest proof of the true extent of this discrepancy. However, we cannot stop here out of astonishment, but rather pose another bitter question: what could the cause of this unsightly discrepancy be, which was condemned by this group among the Imamiyyah, whose disavowing of Imamiyyah Shiaism and its beliefs was lamented by at-Tusi? This is where the heart of the matter lies.

As a preface to uncovering this secret, I would like readers to imagine the following scene: a man is sat with us, and surrounding him are a group of people who are speaking in his name, except that they are all essentially lying and fabricating against him what he did not say. Each one of them is speaking independently of the other, without them uniting amongst themselves to achieve a uniform statement. Even if this unification occurs at times, it is non-existent for the majority of the time. So I ask you in the name of Allah: is it not natural that there will be discrepancy and inconsistency between what all these liars all say in the name of this one person?

Take into consideration how many liars had gathered around the imams of the Ahl al-Bayt, to the extent that Imam as-Sadiq said, “Not a single one of us (imams of the Ahl al-Bayt) is safe from liars.” Take into consideration the extent to which these narrators were affiliated to extremist sects, regarding whom Imam as-Sadiq said, “Amongst them are those who lie, such that even Satan needs their lies.”[20] Also consider the fact that a number of the authors of the Four Hundred Sources were of incorrect belief.

Miqbas al-Hidaya of al-Mamiqani states:

Al-Mawla al-Wahid related from his maternal uncle, al-Majlisi (the second), and also his grandfather al-Majlisi (the first) that being an author of one of the Sources is amongst the causes of excellence, but he himself scrutinised this, considering that many of the authors of the Sources had adopted incorrect beliefs, albeit their books are reliable, as clearly stated at the beginning of Al-Fihrist.”[21]

Thereafter, al-Mamiqani presents ‘Ali ibn Abi Hamza al-Bata’ini as an example, who wrote many books and a complete commentary of the Qu’ran, except that Ibn Faddal said about him: “A liar, accused [of lying], accursed…I do not consider it lawful to relate even one hadith from him”[22]

If you consider all of this, it will become totally clear to you, if Allah wills, that this huge heritage which the Shi’a boastfully attribute towards the imams from the family of Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is nothing but a caricature of what Allah said: “So woe to those who write the “scripture” with their own hands, then say, “This is from Allah,” in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.”[23]

And if you want proof for this, look for it in the principle which Allah Most High informed us of when He said: “If it had been from [any] other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction.”[24]

And if you want to find out the identity of those who are accused of this great lie, look at what al-Mamiqani said:

It is commonly stated by the scholars, rather in their books too, that the Four Hundred Sources were compiled in the era of our master as-Sadiq (alayhis salam) according to some, or in the era of both Sadiqs (alayhimas salam) (i.e., al-Baqir and as-Sadiq) according to another, or in the era of aS-Sadiq and al-Kazim (alayhimas salam).[25]

Having read this, you will now hopefully realise:

why there are so few narrations from the latter imams in the books of the Shi’a

why they completely ignored the divinely-inerrant chain of narration of the imams

why, in transmitting the Sunna, their exclusive reliance is upon suspicious and mendacious persons who turned Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq into the pseudo-source for the lies which they then spread in his name.

and how all of that turned into the self-contradictory mass of narrations that is the hadith of the Shi’a.

When you see al-Kulayni turn away from narrating the hadiths of the Ahl al-Bayt through the chain of Imam al-Mahdi, from Imam al-’Askari, from Imam al-Hadi, from Imam al-Jawwad, from Imam ar-Rida, from Imam al-Kazim, from Imam as-Sadiq, but you see he is very happy to acquire the Sunnah from ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi, from Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Barqi, from ‘Ali ibn al-Hakam, from ‘Ali ibn Abi Hamza al-Bata’ini, from Abu Basir, from as-Sadiq, then know the secret behind this and do not be from the absentminded!

We ask Allah to protect our religion for us.

All praise belongs to Allah in the beginning and the end. May Allah bless and send peace on our leader Muhammad, his family and his companions.

[5] It was believed that the Hidden Imam had emissaries who met him and relayed messages on his behalf to the people, after he went into hiding.

[6] It is appropriate to mention that I came across this point when I heard a Shi’i say that Imam al-Bukhari deviated from the Ahl al-Bayt, as he had abandoned narrating from Imam Hasan al-’Askari, despite being his contemporary. I researched the matter and said to him, “If this proves that Bukhari was a NaSibi [an opponent of the Ahl al-Bayt], al-Kulayni is the greatest NaSibi.” It then became clear to me that this objection stems from ‘Abd al-Husayn in al-Muraja’at (Shaykh Taha Karaan).